MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES AND FACILITIES Sixty-eighth Session June 12, 1995 The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 2:00 p.m., on Monday, June 12, 1995, in Room 226 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman Senator Sue Lowden, Vice Chairman Senator Maurice Washington Senator Kathy M. Augustine Senator Bob Coffin Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr. Senator Bernice Mathews GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Kerry Carroll Davis, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau Mary Gavin, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: James R. Pierce, Environmental Health Supervisor, Bureau of Health Protection Services, State Health Division Irene Porter, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada Home Builders Association John Sarb, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources Bill Owen, Executive Director, State Emergency Response Commission Sam McMullen, Lobbyist, Optometrists and Opthamologists Fred Hillerby, Lobbyist, Nevada Optometric Association Marsha Berkbigler, Lobbyist, Nevada Opthamological Society Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, President, Nevada Concerned Citizens Don Winne, Deputy Attorney General Debbie Cahill, Lobbyist, Director, Legislative Affairs, Nevada State Education Association Elaine Lancaster, Lobbyist, President-Elect, Nevada State Education Association Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, President, Nevada Eagle Forum Carrie Britton, Concerned Parent Jeanne Simons, Concerned Parent Chairman Rawson opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 550. SENATE BILL 550: Revises provisions governing use of Uniform Plumbing Code. James R. Pierce, Environmental Health Supervisor, Bureau of Health Protection Services, Health Division, testified from prepared text (Exhibit C). The chairman asked Mr. Pierce if the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) is a Nevada code or a national code, and Mr. Pierce responded that it is a national code. Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Pierce how he felt about the general policy of putting Nevada in the hands of someone who is not responsible to Nevada. Mr. Pierce said while he does not like someone telling him what to do, he thinks the UPC is a good code and with the proposed S.B. 550, it would allow the Public Works Board to review that code and to voice any objections the board may have. The chairman wondered if the national code has veto power over the state code, and read aloud page 2, section 5 of S.B. 550, as follows: "...shall review each amendment to the Uniform Plumbing Code and approve or disapprove of the amendment for use in Nevada." Chairman Rawson said they do have veto power over parts of it. The chairman asked Mr. Pierce if he is aware of another bill going through the Legislature, Senate Bill (S.B.) 477, which deals with the issue of exempting the number of facilities that have to be part of a convention facility. Mr. Pierce said, "Yes, I am aware of that." SENATE BILL 477: Exempts convention halls from requirement of providing sufficient number of water closets and urinals to comply with uniform plumbing code. The chairman asked if this bill, S.B. 550, would modify the UPC or if it would be in conflict with the other bill, S.B. 477. Mr. Pierce asked if he meant the other bill that is going around on convention facilities? The chairman answered affirmatively. Mr. Pierce said it does modify the UPC. The chairman said if the Legislature passes S.B. 550, will it be in conflict with S.B. 477 in that it does not leave a clear-cut definition of what the plumbing code will be. To further clarify, Chairman Rawson explained that S.B. 550 says essentially that Nevada will follow the UPC, and there is another part of the statute where it says Nevada is going to modify the UPC, and he asked if Nevada will end up with an unresolvable conflict on those points or will S.B. 550 take precedence over that? Mr. Pierce said he did not see a conflict, and he believes that everything will work out all right. Senator Washington asked Mr. Pierce if this is the code that will be taught during the state's apprenticeship programs. Mr. Pierce said this is the code the division will use in the performance of its duties of reviewing plans for pools, spas, restaurants and so forth. The chairman asked if he would expect a state apprenticeship program to follow the UPS. Mr. Pierce replied affirmatively. Senator Washington observed that the UPC has not been updated since 1991. Mr. Pierce said it has been updated in 1994. It was printed in 1993, but the state cannot use it because the existing statute says the state cannot use any edition unless it is prior to January 1991, so the state is using the 1991 edition right now. Mr. Pierce said what the state is asking the Legislature to do is to make it so the state can use the latest edition to keep up with the times; to keep up with construction changes and so forth, but with the review of the Public Works Board. Irene Porter, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada Home Builders Association, testified in place of Mr. Bob Webber, Manager, Building Department for Clark County. She said Mr. Webber has some comments and some suggested amendments for S.B. 550 which she has sent for and which will be available in a few minutes. The hearing on S.B. 550 was temporarily suspended, and the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 558 was opened. SENATE BILL 558: Requires certification of mental health-mental retardation technicians employed by division of child and family services. John Sarb, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, State Department of Human Resources, said this bill was requested by the division to correct an omission from the 1993 legislative session that set up the process for certification of mental health technicians employed by the state. The language in the law at the present time has the Division of Mental Health-Mental Retardation (MH-MR) certifying mental health technicians, but it only refers to mental health technicians employed by MH-MR. The Division of Child and Family Services is omitted. Mr. Sarb indicated the division has in its employ some 35 mental health technicians and with this bill, those technicians could then be certified by the Division of Mental Health-Mental Retardation. Chairman Rawson wondered about the concern of the division and asked if this certification is an accreditation issue. Mr. Sarb said 2 years ago, the issue around certification had to do with minimum standards for people who often have the most direct care contact with clients in residential mental health facilities. He said the actual certification process has not happened because the division was not written into the bill at the last session. Mr. Sarb said that he spoke with Dr. Carlos Brandenburg, Acting Director, MH-MR. this morning to see if he had any opposition to the bill, and he had none. The chairman asked Mr. Sarb if the cost could be handled without the committee having to address budget issues and the like. Mr. Sarb said there should be no fiscal impact. The hearing was closed on S.B. 558. SENATOR AUGUSTINE MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 558. SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR MATHEWS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * The hearing was opened on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 266. ASSEMBLY BILL 266: Requires state emergency response commission to impose reporting fee and places limitation on total amount of fees person is required to pay annually to state emergency response commission. Bill Owen, Executive Director, State Emergency Response Commission, said he served on the Governor's executive agency for public law 99-499, which is the emergency planning and community right-to-know act. This involves the state and the management and regulation of hazardous material. The commission is composed of a partnership of equals drawn from state agencies, local governments and the regulated industries. Mr. Owen said the partnership is successful and is based on the cooperative relationship among those parties. The funds are derived from fees collected from those who use, manufacture or store hazardous materials. At the inception of the commission, the fees derived from this activity were capped, at least the intent was to cap those fees at $5,000 per facility or installation or person, as defined in the law. However, language in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) [Chapter] 459 was not interpreted that way. This bill, A.B. 266, addresses the issue and completes the commission's agreement with its regulated industries. Chairman Rawson asked, "When you say it wasn't interpreted that way, you mean there have been fees charged higher than that?" Mr. Owen replied, "Yes, sir, there have been. The fees were interpreted as a cap of $5,000, $5,000 and $2,000, which actually represents a $12,000 cap, and that is being redressed with this particular bill." Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Owen if he feels there is agreement in the industry on this matter, and Mr. Owen replied in the affirmative. Chairman Rawson asked what the effect has been of not having it capped, and if that has made it more difficult for the industry; has it driven anyone out of business, has it changed the flow pattern of waste? Mr. Owen said he has not seen any dramatic effect one way or the other, except there have been complaints from those industries that were, by their activities, required to pay more than the $5,000 that some years ago they were led to believe they were going to pay initially. The chairman asked if the division was involved with any FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) planning, and Mr. Pierce responded negatively. Senator Augustine asked why the new language is almost identical to the language that is being repealed. Is it just being moved from one section to another? Mr. Owen said line 6 on page 2 of the new document talks about the fee cap, saying that "... no person shall require..." Senator Augustine said that is already in existing language where it says "...must not be required to pay more than $5,000 in reporting fees in a calendar year." Mr. Pierce responded by citing line 6 where it talks about all of subsection 1, which is on lines 6 and 16 of page 1. These refer to different kinds of fees; one is for storage, and one is for amounts manufactured for transport. Chairman Rawson said, "Essentially, you are saying it was interpreted that someone could be charged multiple fees if they transported, stored or whatever." Senator Augustine said, "It seems like in the current language, it is already there. It says '...except that a person must not be required to pay more than $5,000.' I see, you are just taking out reporting fees in any calendar year. You do have the language, except 'reporting' should not have been in there." Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Owen if this had been a question in his mind before. Mr. Owen said no. Chairman Rawson said the language had been misinterpreted, so to straighten it out, the language was added on line 6, page 2. Mr. Owen agreed. The chairman said it was easy to see why there had been confusion on the language. The hearing was closed on A.B. 266. SENATOR AUGUSTINE MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 266. SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator Washington said he did not understand Part 355 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and asked if that had to do with the transporting of hazardous material and storage. The chairman said yes. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR MATHEWS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * The hearing was opened on Senate Bill (S.B.) 557. SENATE BILL 557: Authorizes optometrists to form certain business relationships with physicians. Sam McMullen, Lobbyist, Optometrists and Opthamologists, said he was representing optometrists and opthamologists who wanted to see some restrictions in the law, and other operating restrictions taken out of the law, with respect to them joining together within their scope of practice, and not acting outside the individual scope of practice, to associate together for purposes of what they consider to be better care of their patients and the mutual serving of those patients. Chairman Rawson asked if S.B. 557 has anything to do with the discussions on medications. Mr. McMullen said it has nothing to do with that. Basically, the bill just says that an opthamologist can do this and an optometrist can do that, whatever is statutorily authorized, and those two practices can associate together for purposes of providing medical services to patients. Chairman Rawson asked if the two had to be in the same building. Mr. McMullen said he did not think there was any restriction on that. The problem with this has been that to the extent the two were in the same building, the optometry board has a restriction that there had to be a wall placed between them. Mr. McMullen continued by saying this bill is basically to say that to the extent there are optometrists and physicians who want to do things and function together within their own scopes of practice, this bill authorizes them to do so. He said that page 2 and page 3 of the bill allows osteopathic physicians to have a business relationship with an optometrist. If they form such a relationship, they do not have to be physically separated, and they can advertise their services consistent with the restrictions in this law. Chapter 636 of NRS allows an optometrist to have a business relationship with a physician, and they do not have to be physically separated and can advertise their services consistent with the restrictions in this law. Mr. McMullen said that, basically, this bill takes what is in place in law and confirms that physicians and optometrists should be able to practice together and mutually benefit their patients. Chairman Rawson asked if there is another measure before the Legislature dealing with optometry. Fred Hillerby, Lobbyist, Nevada Optometric Association, said, "Yes, Assembly Bill (A.B.) 438." ASSEMBLY BILL 438: Prohibits optometrist from administering or prescribing therapeutic agents without certificate issued by Nevada state board of optometry.. Mr. Hillerby said his association has no opposition to S.B. 577. The association agrees that group practices in specialty areas make a lot of sense. Marsha Berkbigler, Lobbyist, Nevada Opthamological Society, said that her society is also in agreement with this bill. Senator Neal asked why this bill is needed? As he reads the bill, the law does not seem to prohibit group practice right now. Ms. Berkbigler said currently in the optometric statutes there is language that defines who can employ an optometrist. An opthamologist is not included in that statute. There is nothing in the statutes that says they can form a business relationship. In other statutes, professional corporations are limited to physicians only. This bill is attempting to allow optometrists and opthamologists to have group practices. Senator Neal asked if the optometrist can work with any type of physician according to this language. Mr. Hillerby said he asked Mr. McMullen not to limit this bill to opthamology because there are group practices where you see physicians coming together to try to provide a broad spectrum of care within one practice. So that is why the bill reads physician and not the specialty of opthamology. The reason that this came forward is because the people who approached Mr. McMullen were optometrists and opthamologists, but Mr. Hillerby said he does not think the bill should be that narrow, but that health professionals should be able to come together to offer better care for patients. Senator Neal said, "The fact that the bill creates this close association, would that tend to lead to the optometrist performing medical procedures, other than the measurement of the eye for glasses?" Ms. Berkbigler said these are professionals that will work within their scope of practice, whatever that scope of practice may be. Currently, the scope of practice for optometrists does not allow them to do extensive eye care under the proposed legislation in S.B. 557, which her association believes will pass. Basically, that would expand the scope of practice of the optometrist and allows them to do a little bit more eye care. Her association does not believe this bill will cause someone to work outside of the scope of their practice. Senator Neal said the eye profession is a three-way profession consisting of the opthamologists, opticians and optometrists. And, Senator Neal said, it seems logical that you can do without the optometrist. Senator Augustine said Mr. McMullen seemed to indicate there is a physical separation. On page 3, lines 22 and 23, it says: "Locate his office in the same place of business as the physician without a physical separation between the place of business." The chairman indicated he read into that that historically there was a physical separation. Mr. McMullen said, "Currently, there is a requirement for a separate wall between businesses. So, consequently, if they want to have a common reception area, they currently must have separate patient rooms for each practice. This enables the practitioners to better serve their patients." Senator Augustine asked Mr. McMullen if the bill was requested by opthamologists and opticians, and he replied affirmatively. The hearing was closed on S.B. 557. SENATOR LOWDEN MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 557. SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * The hearing was opened on Senate Bill (S.B.) 162. SENATE BILL 162: Requires fee for burial of certain veterans in state veterans' cemeteries. The chairman said he had spoken with Randy Day, Commissioner for Veteran Affairs, and he agrees this bill is probably unnecessary, and unless someone objects, it should be indefinitely postponed. SENATOR AUGUSTINE MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 162. SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * The hearing was opened on Senate Bill (S.B.) 341. SENATE BILL 341: Prohibits eliciting of certain information from pupils without parental consent and requires school districts to provide certain records to parents. The chairman presented amendments to S.B. 341 for the committee's consideration. Senator Augustine asked the chairman if the amendments to S.B. 341 were adopted from the Grassley Amendment, and the chairman answered affirmatively. Chairman Rawson said there was one change 4 lines down in section 2 of the amendment. The Grassley Amendment reads, "...which is to reveal any of the following" and the amendment says "...which reveals any of the following." The chairman continued, saying section 2, subsection 2, (a) through (g) is the same as the Grassley Amendment. Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, President, Nevada Concerned Citizens, testified in favor of the amendment, and presented some positive suggestions. Ms. Lusk said the Grassley Amendment says "that reveals" and the proposed amendment says "which reveals." Also, Ms. Lusk directed attention to section 2, subsection 2, where the bold language does not seem to go naturally with what follows it, and she suggested that be considered as a separate section, section 2, which would say: "Consent of a parent or guardian is not required in a situation which a school employee reasonably believes to be an emergency or as authorized under chapter 432B of NRS, Protection of Children from Abuse and Neglect." Ms. Lusk suggested that the existing section 2 become section 3 and read exactly as it does in the bill, starting with, "Written consent...", and the other sections to be renumbered consecutively thereafter. Ms. Lusk requested consideration of a change in wording to section 2, subsection 5, which would be subsection 6 if renumbered, where it says in bold language, "If a school employee or agent believes that a situation exists which presents a serious threat to the well-being of a student, the parent or guardian shall be notified without delay, unless the matter has been reported to a legally authorized child protective service agency or law enforcement agency, and the agency has asked that disclosure not be given." Ms. Lusk said that change would assure that child protective agencies that work with the counties and the police agencies would also have access to that information. Senator Neal said he disagreed with Ms. Lusk on section 2, because written consent modifies the exception. Ms. Lusk responded, "Not if you make it separate." Senator Neal read section 2, as follows: "Except in response to a situation which a school employee reasonably believes to be an emergency authorized under chapter 432B of NRS, 'Protection of Children from Abuse and Neglect,' written consent." Senator Neal reiterated "written consent, written consent of a parent or legal guardian is valid only if a parent or guardian has at least 2 weeks, but not more than 5 months before the information is sought, ..." Ms. Lusk interrupted, saying, "Senator Neal, that is why I am suggesting it be made a separate section so that the written consent does not modify it, so that instead it stands by itself preceded by "Consent of a parent or guardian is not required in a situation which..." Senator Neal said, "Then there is an exception which does not apply to anything." Ms. Lusk said, "It applies to emergency situations or child abuse situations, and if you make it subsection 2, it applies to the entire section." Senator Neal said then you have a dependent clause which does not connect. Ms. Lusk said, "But you don't have the phrase, 'except in response to.' The phrase that is left is 'consent of a parent or guardian is not required in a situation which a school employee...' It seems to me it is clearly stated." Chairman Rawson said the wording in the amendment seems awkward, and probably bill drafting can straighten it out. Ms. Lusk said, "The point I am making is the same one Senator Neal is making. The point is that it is not the written consent that you want to make an exception to; it is the information, and so you have to put it separately." Senator Neal said the exception applies to an emergency. Ms. Lusk agreed, and added, "And to child abuse situations." Senator Neal said the way he understands it is that a written consent from the parents or guardian would not be required if it was an emergency. Ms. Lusk said, "Precisely." Don Winne, Deputy Attorney General, representing the Division of Child and Family Services, said his client, Mr. John Sarb, has stated that he thinks the amendments will go a long way to ensure that continued reporting will be received on child abuse. Mr. Winne said he was concerned with talk about an evaluation that is being done. Technically, when you have a child come forward to a teacher and start relating incidences of abuse or neglect around the home, the teacher is evaluating whether or not they perceive this as being a true statement they can rely upon to then report to the Division of Child and Family Services. He said he did not know how they are going to get around that. That might be a problem. Senator Augustine asked for his reference, and he said section 2, the first bold part on page 1. Mr. Winne said he was just in a training class for child protective service workers, and some teachers were present. He said he told them just because a child comes up to the teacher and reports abuse, it is not automatic that it is to be reported. The teachers have to use their best judgment. Mr. Winne said the word "evaluation" is used in the amendment. There are the teachers asking questions to evaluate whether or not the incident should be reported or are they in violation of section 2, although there is an exception to that in 432B of NRS. Mr. Winne gave an example of abuse reported to a teacher, and the teacher does not feel that the report is reliable and does not report it to the division. Because the teacher did make this evaluation under subsection 2, is the teacher in violation of the law? Mr. Winne said he did not know the answer. He was just mentioning it as a possible issue that could be raised, and Mr. Winne felt the committee should consider this and issue a statement of intent. The chairman asked if Mr. Winne wanted a record for legislative intent. He said this is not an attempt to stop the discovery of child abuse. This legislation, and the intent of the committee, would not interpret this as being an attempt to stop any discovery of a harmful situation to a child. Senator Augustine asked Mr. Winne if he knew the exact language of this bill is already in federal law. Mr. Winne said he understood that it was. He said S.B. 341 is incorporating what is in the federal law into Nevada law. Mr. Winne said his only concern was to make sure that the word "evaluation" includes a teacher's ability to evaluate what is going on with this child to determine on their own if what the child is saying is valid and something they should act on. Senator Augustine pointed out that in federal law it says, "No student shall be required as part of any applicable program to submit to a survey, analysis or evaluation that reveals information concerning..." and the state amendment says "...which reveals any of the following..." Mr. Winne said he agrees with that, but the word "program" is taken out. When you have a program, you have something very organized, very structured. You are attacking or approaching these questions with a certain direction and intent. Whereas, if the educator sees welts on the side of arm of a student and says, "How did you get those welts?" The student says, "My daddy hit me hard." That is when the evaluation starts kicking in. Senator Augustine said to Chairman Rawson that "program" was taken out. "No public school in this state may administer, cause to be administered, any program to submit to a survey, analysis or evaluation." The word "program" probably should remain in the bill. Chairman Rawson asked if there was any objection to adding the word "program" back in the bill. He asked Mr. Winne if adding that word back would deal with some of his concerns. Mr. Winne responded by saying it probably would, except in a situation where you have those good touch, bad touch programs. But, again, because of the exception here when you have this mandatory reporting, it has been dealt with despite legislative intent on the record saying this is not what it is meant to do, so when somebody is trying to evaluate the situation on an individual basis and they do not report the abuse, they are not subject to these penalties because it is their individual evaluation. Chairman Rawson again asked if anyone objected to adding back the word "program" into that first paragraph? Senator Augustine said that would be "...program to submit to any survey..." Carrie Britton, Concerned Citizen, testified in support of the amendments, except section 3.5. She feels the state board would be lenient, if not obstructive, with compliance. Debbie Cahill, Lobbyist, Director, Legislative Affairs, Nevada State Education Association, said the association is not so much in opposition to the amendments, but still have questions as to the intent and the meaning. She said if "program" is put back into the wording, that may raise the association's concern even more. We are still dealing with political affiliations and philosophies. Ms. Cahill said, "We are required to teach American government. We are still dealing with sexual behavior, orientation or attitudes. We are required to teach sex education." Ms. Cahill asked if it is the intent to focus in on any survey, analysis or evaluation which is above and beyond, totally outside the established curriculum. If it is, that is one thing. If it is intended to apply to any function that takes place within the school, then the association would still have a problem with some of these areas. The chairman said it seems to him this is trying to get at the issue of defining in some way that a student might be different in a way that might be discriminatory against the student. Chairman Rawson said: I think that is the issue. Not so much as them doing a class project where they will be voting or taking sides on a certain issue or something like that, but it is in trying to identify or label a student where they may be discriminated against. If we were to find out a student has a homosexual philosophy, that student might immediately be singled out and come to harm or to a disadvantage because of that. If we had a student in a class that belonged to a minor party, was an independent libertarian and might be singled out and persecuted because of that, that would be bad. Ms. Cahill said she would defer to Ms. Lancaster because she has a question about specific application. The chairman said, "I have been trying to give legislative intent here as we go along, so if anybody disagrees, we should talk about it." Elaine Lancaster, Lobbyist, President-Elect, Nevada State Education Association, said if as a first-grade teacher, she teaches a family unit, a "me" unit, which is what is done in kindergarten, first and second grades, and the children draw pictures of moms or dads or aunts or uncles or of the dog and the cat and so forth. Theoretically, under this bill, she could not do that. Ms. Lancaster said she does not think this is the intent of either the Grassley Amendment or this bill. Chairman Rawson asked Ms. Lancaster if she has any students in her programs that are there because of federal money in one way or another. Ms. Lancaster answered negatively. Chairman Rawson asked her to think about it asking, "Do you have any students that might have some part of their day scheduled in special education?" Ms. Lancaster answered affirmatively, saying, "Sure, but those are not the kinds of questions they ask, and they get up and go to special education anyway." Chairman Rawson said, "The point I am trying to make is that you probably live under the Grassley Amendment right now. It is federal legislation that is in effect and probably affects you in the classroom now." Ms. Lancaster said, "Thank goodness the federal government does not reach into one's classroom all the time. Possibly, yes, but I have never been fined or told by an administrator evaluating the program that I could not do those things." Chairman Rawson continued, "Now, give me an example again of what kind of things that you are concerned about, just an example." Ms. Lancaster said: Elementary kinds of things. When you survey or analyze or evaluate, I do not know what an evaluation is under those terms. When you do the kinds of family units that you do, the kinds of social studies, community kinds of things that you work with, I just think it is difficult for a classroom teacher to understand what it is and is not they can and cannot do. My understanding of the Grassley Amendment, and I do not know and would like to have it confirmed, was that it was to apply to any survey, analysis or evaluation which was totally beyond the realm of established curriculum. Currently, parents and faculty members have the opportunity to review and approve anything and contribute to anything that is currently in curriculum, and my understanding is that this was to cover anything that might fall outside of something that was already established in curriculum, for whatever reason. There are a lot of areas that are classroom activities and are part of established curriculum, and I was just wondering if at some point a teacher is going to have to try to make a legal determination asking, 'Do I have to stop here and get parental consent before I can continue with this part of this program or this part of the curriculum.' We just do not know how that is to apply to us. Chairman Rawson said, "Which could be foolish; which could get to be very difficult." Senator Augustine pointed out to Ms. Lancaster the first part of the Grassley Amendment pertains to instructional materials, teachers' manuals, films, tapes and so forth. The second part of it deals with the program, and is why Mr. Winne had a problem because this amendment is supposed to mirror what is in the Grassley Amendment, and we had deleted the word "program." Ms. Lancaster said she had a problem with that, and that is actually an existing law. Letters have been received from the United States Department of Education on that subject. It is existing law, so it really is a moot point. Chairman Rawson said that is why the Nevada State Board of Education is here to define anything that violates this section and to describe the procedures. Senator Neal asked Ms. Lancaster, "As a first-grade teacher, what has been your experience in terms of information that you have seen or needed in reference in being able to teach first- grade students?" Ms. Lancaster replied, "You mean as far as their personnel file, that kind of thing?" Senator Neal said, "Yes." Ms. Lancaster replied, "I don't ever look at a personnel file." Senator Neal asked, "What other information do you get in your classroom?" Ms. Lancaster said, "I usually start from day one with my kids that have been assigned to the classroom, and I start working with them in the classroom through the kinds of things I just described to you; family units, me units, what I like about me, what I don't like about me, what I'd like to do, what I wouldn't like to do. Those kinds of things, and I go from there." Senator Neal asked, "What about drawings and pictures?" Ms. Lancaster said, "We do all of that along with it." Senator Neal asked, "Do you make an evaluation of those?" Miss Lancaster replied, "No, I just write on the bottom of the picture whatever the child has told me about what is in the picture." Senator Neal continued, "What if a child drew a picture of a person holding an axe over another person?" Ms. Lancaster said: I would not evaluate the picture. I would take it to my school counselor and my administrator. I do not evaluate those kinds of things. When I see a mark on a child, I do not evaluate that. I take it to the school counselor. That is the law, as far as I am concerned. Public school employees do not evaluate welts. We take them to the proper authorities. Senator Neal continued by asking, "So, it is the counselor's position to then make that evaluation?" Ms. Lancaster said, "It is the counselor's and the administrator's position to report it to the correct agency." Senator Neal asked, "Well, what affect do you think this would have upon those individuals in terms of being able to adequately explain or evaluate those types of situations." Ms. Lancaster replied, "I don't know if I can address that, senator. I am not familiar enough with how the counselor does their job from the time I leave it." "Senator Neal remarked, "What you just told us about how you proceed with your students, is this generally the position of other teachers?" Ms. Lancaster said, "As far as evaluating abuse kinds of things and the kinds of pictures that would indicate that we have serious trouble, yes." Chairman Rawson remarked that he did not perceive anything Ms. Lancaster told the committee to be in conflict. He asked Ms. Lancaster, "Does it matter to you that you have students that are Jewish or Catholic?" Ms. Lancaster said, "No, I actually would like to have some Jewish students because then they can do Hanukkah, and they can explain it to the kids, which I do every year." Chairman Rawson asked, "Do you do any kind of exercises that decide if their families are republican or democrat?" Ms. Lancaster said: Only when we do the Weekly Reader presidential poll because kids are going to tell you how their parents vote anyway. We only do that kind of thing. In high school, they do a tremendous amount in government classes. They talk parties, they bring in speakers and they get real involved with it. Jeanne Simons, Concerned Parent, said she supports the amendments, as is. She said she would like to bring up an issue regarding the wording on programs. She said what she believes it means at the federal level is that if it is not in compliance, if there is a program where federal dollars are used, then educators must comply with these rules and regulations. She said as a parent, she feels that parents should have access to the curriculum. Each and every parent has a different opinion about what is subversive, what is sectarian, and if parents have access to this information, it is up to them to go look at the information and make the decision on whether they want their child to be involved in the program or not. Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, State President, Nevada Eagle Forum, said her forum supports the amendments and the suggestions that have been made. She feels the purpose of the amendments is not of great concern to each individual teacher and the individual things they do in their classes. It is only when educators start invading the family privacy with surveys that identify problems in the family and expose those problems to people that perhaps should not have that information. She said it is not just regular classroom activities the people that testified here were concerned about. That was not their concern, and she does not think it is the focus of the bill. She said the focus of the bill is when the purpose of the survey or the test or the evaluation is to reveal private, personal information about the family that they do not feel should be revealed in a public school. The chairman pointed out that all of the discussion is clarifying or elucidating the legislative intent. The hearing was closed S.B. 341. SENATOR AUGUSTINE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 341, ADDING BACK IN SECTION 2 THE APPLICABLE PROGRAM OR VERBIAGE USED IN THE UNITED STATES CODE. SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator Neal said he had a question concerning the words "survey, analysis or evaluation," as to their meaning. Not having seen or read the Grassley Amendment and if there is such a definition, he said he thinks it should be included in the bill. If it is not included, he feels the bill is going to be very vague in terms of the meaning and would allow everyone to supply their own definition for those particular words. Chairman Rawson asked, "Is there a definition in the Grassley Amendment?" Senator Lowden asked if while that was being researched, she could respond to Senator Neal's question. Senator Lowden said she would agree with Senator Neal, except she feels the state board is going to adopt rules that individual teachers and school districts can look at to establish what is the definition of a survey. Senator Neal said that should be put in the bill. Senator Lowden pointed out that it is in the bill, the next to the last section. Senator Neal said it says "parental consent requirements." He asked if that means they are going to include the definition. Senator Lowden said that is what she reads out of section 3.5, that the state board is going to be a buffer. Senator Neal said he thinks the definitions should be made known and should be a part of the record, and the board should be directed to supply these definitions so the statute is not vague. The chairman agreed. He said they should be of plain meaning and should be elucidated by the state board. Ms. Lusk said there is concern about inserting "applicable program." She said she understands the intention of this wording is the reason it says "applicable" in the federal program because it deals with programs that receive federal funds. All school programs receive state funds, so there is no "applicable" aspect. If the word "program" is desirable, it could just read "any school program." Ms. Lusk continued by saying it was the intent of the motion to include the language related to the child and family services division to include any child protective agency or law enforcement agency. Also, it was the intent to separate the language dealing with the emergency and abuse. The chairman concurred, and said bill drafting should use their discretion in clarifying those items. Senator Coffin said he has not been able to find anything that could be characterized as something relating to classroom discussion and other things in the Grassley Amendment. The wording relates to records. He said someone on the committee said that our bill contains the Grassley language, but he cannot see where it does anything but talk about the privacy of records. Senator Coffin said he was concerned that we may put something into Nevada statute the committee thinks is in the federal bill. Chairman Rawson said as he reads S.B. 341, section 2 talks specifically about ... "no public school in this state may administer or cause to be administered...any survey, analysis or evaluation...," and it seems to him that parallels the Grassley Amendment. Senator Coffin apologized, saying that he was looking at Family Educational Rights & Privacy Act (FERPA), rather than the Grassley Amendment, and said he would abstain from the vote as he did not think the committee was exactly sure where it was going with the amendments. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR MATHEWS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE AND SENATOR COFFIN ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE.) * * * * * The hearing was again opened on Senate Bill (S.B.) 550. SENATE BILL 550: Revises provisions governing use of uniform plumbing code and authorizes use of international plumbing code. Ms. Porter said she would try to explain Mr. Webber's amendments, as follows: Bob Webber is the director of the Clark County Building Department, and Mr. Webber, with the other heads of the various building departments in southern Nevada, have formed a group where they communicate with each other and with the home building industry, with the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC), and others of the groups, and they try to come up with joint agreements on certain things within the building departments. One of the things the group has been working on in the last year is attempting to get all of the building departments in southern Nevada on the same edition of the building code, the plumbing code and the mechanical code because one department has adopted a 1991 edition, one has adopted a 1993 edition, one is still working off a 1989 edition. As part of their discussions, the group has been working on looking at the statutes, and S.B. 550 begins to address NRS [Chapter] 444. Rather than having Uniform Plumbing Code of the International Association of Plumbing and Plant Mechanical Officials in the statute with a particular date, which makes it necessary to always come before the Legislature, the group is trying to amend these various statutes to include the most recent published edition of the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials or other national model code. The national organization of the International Conference of Building Officials, on which Mr. Webber does serve as a member of the board of directors, has published a new document called the International Plumbing Code (IPC), which goes one step beyond the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC). Under NRS [Chapter] 444, IPC could not be adopted be ca us e of th e wa y th e st at ut es ar e, so th at is wh at Mr . We bb er 's am en dm e nt s sp ec if ic al ly ad dr es s in NR S [C ha pt er ] 44 4. The amendments to NRS [Chapter] 444, subsections 350, 420 and 430 (Exhibit D) are offered for incorporation in S.B. 550, which should solve all the problems. Chairman Rawson said in many fields by going to an international code, which is a lesser code, you decrease the level of sophistication. Ms. Porter said it does not work that way in plumbing because the international code has been set by the American International Conference of Building Officials. Ms. Porter thought it was an attempt to start bringing the code up all over the world, but there are many places in the world that will not comply with any plumbing code whatsoever. She said the local governments will still have the option of going with UPC or IPC. Ms. Porter pointed out that one of the most important things involved is to get the most recently published edition. The 1995 edition is coming up, but the statute says the group has to deal with the 1991 code, so that is a problem that needs to be taken out of current law. Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Pierce if he agreed with the amendments. Mr. Pierce said the association wants to retract the amendments to NRS [Chapter] 444.350, as proposed in S.B. 550, to eliminate the two sentences in section 1, paragraph 1, lines 1, 2, 3 and 4, and have it read: "...with the most recent published edition of the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials or other model plumbing code in the form most recently published by that organization effective January 1 the following year." Mr. Pierce said that would ensure the most recent edition of the plumbing code would be allowed, and he agrees with that change. The second change would revise section 2, third line, to read: "Country desiring to make changes to the Uniform Plumbing Code or other national model plumbing code must, before its adoption..." Mr. Pierce explained that S.B. 550 seeks to modify a particular statute. What the association is asking is to modify two additional statutes to make it uniform with the new changes proposed in S.B. 550. Mr. Pierce said he particularly wanted to point this out because there will undoubtedly be certain procedures to be followed because if you change one, the other will probably have to be changed, too. Chairman Rawson asked Mr. Pierce if he agrees with those changes if they are made consistent. Mr. Pierce said the association is seeking uniformity. He could see there might be some confusion in some jurisdictions where it would have to be ascertained which plumbing code to use. This could be the result of the Nevada statutes which allow autonomy at the county level as to whether they want to use IPC or UPC. Ms. Porter said right now the association is working with southern Nevada by using the 1991 code. That means the counties could be using any edition of the code prior to 1991. Currently, there are five local governments in southern Nevada, and every one of them is working under a different edition of the code. What the association is trying to do is get everyone working under the same edition. Chairman Rawson asked, "Could we just clarify this now in terms of just saying 'the national' rather than going to international? Ms. Porter responded, "Yes, or you could say the Uniform Plumbing Code, most recently published edition." The chairman said, "Let's do that. Let's keep it consistent." Ms. Porter said in California they have mandated that everyone has to work on the same edition, the same year. Senator Washington asked if local governments were using different editions per job. Ms. Porter said no, they would use, for instance, the 1991 edition in every county job or the 1989 edition in every North Las Vegas city job. Whichever edition had been most recently adopted by that local government. The association has already been working with the builders to start this joint group in southern Nevada. Almost all the entities are now on the same edition of the codes now. Senator Washington asked about the electrical trade and if it is in the same situation? Ms. Porter said the department is trying to make all the codes consistent, the building code as well as all other entities, by having them all use the most current edition of the code. Senator Washington asked if all the trades could not be covered by S.B. 550 with the amendments, instead of considering each trade by itself. Ms. Porter said each trade is in different statutes. Senator Neal asked in what country is the IPC developed? Ms. Porter said it is being developed through the International Conference of Building Officials here in the United States. Senator Neal asked further if the International Plumbers Code and the National Plumbers Code is offered here in the United States. Ms. Porter responded affirmatively. Senator Neal asked if they were similar. Ms. Porter said it is her understanding that they are, but she has not looked at the IPC yet. It has just been published, and copies have not yet been distributed. Ms. Porter said association's objective is to get some amendments adopted so that there are not dates in the state law anymore and so the association can work with the most recently published code, rather than work with an outdated code book which is now in the statute. The chairman asked if the amendments address the IPC or UPC. Ms. Porter says it talks about using both, the UPC and IPC. Chairman Rawson asked if the association wants to leave it that way, and Ms. Porter said yes, and believes it is all going to cycle into a National Plumbing Code. The hearing was closed on S.B. 550. SENATOR LOWDEN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 550. SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR MATHEWS, SENATOR AUGUSTINE AND SENATOR COFFIN WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * The hearing was opened on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 4. ASSEMBLY BILL 4: Allows pupils to earn credits toward graduation from high school by completing community service projects. Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani explained that amendments (Exhibit E) were developed on A.B. 4, basically allowing 1 credit for an elective course. The credit cannot be earned for duplicate course work. Also, parental approval for participation is incorporated. If these amendments are approved, the bill will apply to all high schools in the state, not just the two special program schools. Ms. Giunchigliani said it was the feeling that parents should have some say-so over the student's participation in community service, since it will be happening during the school day. Senator Augustine asked if there was not a later amendment than Exhibit E. Ms. Giunchigliani replied that the second page of Exhibit E actually incorporates all the amendments, so the committee can see exactly how it is worded. On the second page, l).(c) covers the duplication of courses and (e) covers parental approval. SENATOR LOWDEN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 4. SENATOR AUGUSTINE SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator Washington asked what the difference is between A.B. 4 and what has already been enacted for 1 credit for Service America and Service Nevada programs. Ms. Giunchigliani said it is her understanding some of the districts have begun to do some community service programs, but it is not anything that is written into regulation. Some concern was raised by high school students, and the students made a request that the regulation be uniformly applied across the state. There were three issues addressed by the amendments: (1) Regulations to cover this issue so that it is uniformly applied across the state; (2) Restriction of participation to elective courses which do not take the place of academic course work; and (3) Parental approval for young adults entering into the program. Senator Washington asked again about Service America and Service Nevada. Ms. Giunchigliani said she was not aware of this program. A.B. 4 covers a community service program to allow for high school credit, which was not previously covered by law. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR WASHINGTON VOTED NO. SENATOR COFFIN AND SENATOR MATHEWS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Mary Gavin, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities June 12, 1995 Page